by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

5

Dispatch → Bulletin → Opinion

by The 🍪 Tropical Biscuit Paradise of Aumeltopia. . 35 reads.

Opinions | General Assembly: Convention on Animal Testing

·
—INTRODUCTION— | —FOR— | —AGAINST—
·

Introduction

The South Pacific's Delegate, Aumeltopia, has voted for this resolution at the present time, due to a strong preference that way among TSP's World Assembly membership (>75% for). The vote on TSP's forum stands at 2 for, 1 against.

Links

Proposal / voting page
On-site drafting forum thread
LinkTSP forum thread

For
·
·
—FROM TSP CITIZENS— | —FROM THE WORLD—
·

From TSP Citizens

Aumeltopia | Opinion from the Delegate

Aumeltopia is the current World Assembly delegate of the South Pacific:

Aumeltopia wrote:While I recognize that there are some small issues with provisions in this draft resolution, including a heavy reliance on bureaucracy and potential allowance for pain and suffering to be caused to test animals through negligence, I believe it is overall a well-written and largely positive proposal which effectively legislates most of the issues it sets out to. Surely there are ways it could be tweaked, but the issues are not severe enough or harmful enough to make a great difference. However, as always, I will vote on the proposal however the South Pacific does as a whole.

From the World

Kenmoria

Kenmoria is a regular contributor to the General Assembly community. They posted this on the draft's forum thread:

Kenmoria wrote:"This proposal, in my opinion, hits the ideal level of strength."


Against
·
·
—FROM TSP CITIZENS— | —FROM THE WORLD—
·

From TSP Citizens

Concrete Slab

Concrete Slab is a Legislator and former Local Councillor, and has written two World Assembly resolutions. He also maintains the World Assembly discussion threads on the TSP forum. He sent this message to the delegate:

Concrete Slab wrote:After further study and deliberation, Alistair Stonseworth and the government of Concrete Slab will be voting Against this proposal. While well meaning, the proposal allows for the suffering of test animals through negligence and is too far in its reach when it requires "all procedures" to be documented. Furthermore, we believe that the World Assembly Board of Bioethics is not meant to be used as a regulatory body, rather, it should be used solely for research and development.

From the World

The Northern Light

The Northern Light is the distribution service for The North Pacific's Information for WA Voters program. This message was sent to residents of TNP:

The Northern Light wrote:The current resolution at vote, Convention on Animal Testing, is well-meaning in its attempt to place ethical restrictions on the use of animal test subjects, however, the Ministry is unable to recommend support at this time. Upon close inspection, the proposal would seem to allow for undue pain and suffering caused by negligence. It should also be noted that the proposal requires that "all procedures" be documented and reported to the World Assembly Bioethics Board. Without a proper definition, the Ministry believes this to be an overreach and would include something as simple as shaving fur for future placement of testing devices. It is also concerning that the World Assembly Bioethics Board appears to acts as a judicial entity. While this is something that extant legislation has done in the past, we must question the necessity of the practice in regards to a subject such as animal testing.



·

·
—Link—Link
·
·

The 🍪 Tropical Biscuit Paradise of Aumeltopia

Raw • Report